Should V.P. Cheney Finally Get His Walking Papers?

Go to page

Ceci

Guest

Now, we've heard that Mr. Cheney has said that he is not of the "Executive Branch". That has produced a can of worms in the Congress, especially with the move of some Democrats to remove Mr. Cheney's funding because of his words. However, today, they did one thing better: they supeonaed him for records associated with the firing of the eight U.S. District Attorneys.

It is expected that Cheney, despite the rule of the law, will refuse to comply.

What I would like to know is whether it is time for Cheney to step down. Do you think that Mr. Cheney is more of a detriment to the Bush White House rather than an asset?

P

Professor Longhair

Guest

marv

Guest

The Constitution (Article I) says he is the President of the Senate - he's in the legistative branch. The Constitution (Article III) also says he's the Vice-President - he's in the executive branch as well. Very unique, but that's what it says.

T

top gun

Guest

The Constitution (Article I) says he is the President of the Senate - he's in the legistative branch. The Constitution (Article III) also says he's the Vice-President - he's in the executive branch as well. Very unique, but that's what it says.

All true but what is his primary responsibility? It's the executive branch job. The only role he plays in the legislative brance is tie breaking.

This is just another Bush/Cheney dodge. Cheney likes to live his life in secret. He doesn't want any oversite hence no trail back to any dirty deeds. He'd have been great in the KGB.

Not unlike the illegal wiretapping or the holding of captives forever without trial the Bush/Cheney game plan is so predictable it's stupid and it goes like this... Sure in the end it will be found that we were wrong and we mustn't do what we did. But by the time we delay and string everything out it will be years of getting our way before we'll ever have to do the right thing... and heck we'll probably be out of office by then.

Only by tradition. During the Washington and Adams Presidencies, the Vice President typically presided over Senate sessions on a daily basis. The Vice President has no Executive authority or responsibility under the Constitution other than to become President if the President dies. Any authority or responsibility he exercises within the Executive is delegated to him by the President, and has varied greatly even in modern times.

Ironically, this could give claims of executive priveledge by Cheney less credibility rather than more (though probably not as the actions in question were as part of the executive).

Illegal wiretapping? I must have missed the judicial ruling that the warrantless wiretapping in fact violated US law (as opposed to using a loophole to get around the intent of US law while remaining technically legal). Holding military captives for the duration of an armed conflict, on the other hand, is entirely and unquestionably legal.

Sure in the end it will be found that we were wrong and we mustn't do what we did. But by the time we delay and string everything out it will be years of getting our way before we'll ever have to do the right thing... and heck we'll probably be out of office by then.

Unless Congress has actual evidence of wrongdoing (as opposed to guesses that maybe something's going on, and if we dig deep enough, who knows, we might just find something that was illegal, but we'll sure as heck find enough to embarass the Administration, which is really the goal of this whole thing) I doubt the subpoenas will hold up. Executive privilege goes back to Washington, and I doubt that clearly internal Executive deliberations involving officials not confirmed by the Senate will be subjected to subpoena for anything less than probable cause.

Ceci

Guest

But, I agree that this reflects Watergate in many ways. What V.P. Cheney and P. Bush is doing is concealing information from the American people. This isn't the first act that they have been involvement. I've heard in some circles that the Bush Administration is one of the most secretive Presidencies ever in history. And how they are doing this is through the circumvention of the law. Now, even they have to know that they cannot totally escape the law with just claiming "Executive Privilege" when they want to.

Somehow, someone has to pay the piper (which Scooter Libby and Jack Abramoff are the first to do so). And I know that Congress says that it is too late for impeachment of any kind (knowing that such a hearing can drag on even into the next Presidency). However, Cheney and Bush can't get away with doing this. They have to be held accountable for what they've done not only in the Iraq War, but also to the American people in terms of wiretapping and datamining. They've skirted (if not gone over the edge) the Fourth Amendment in the name of the "War on Terror".

And I think that the American people have been hoodwinked into believing the hype about fear enough to let them do it. And now, that we've been bitten by the Administration through their efforts, it is about time that an oversight committee comes in to ask the questions and get to the bottom of it.

What are they afraid of? If they did the right things, they should just come out and say it. Concealing things from the American people only reveals that something wasn't right in their endeavors in terms of datamining and wiretapping--especially if they were targetting anti-Iraq War and pro-peace groups in the beginning.

T

top gun

Guest

Only by tradition. During the Washington and Adams Presidencies, the Vice President typically presided over Senate sessions on a daily basis. The Vice President has no Executive authority or responsibility under the Constitution other than to become President if the President dies. Any authority or responsibility he exercises within the Executive is delegated to him by the President, and has varied greatly even in modern times.

Tradition (precedent) counts in a situation like this. If we are to believe there is no major Executive authority and the Vice President isn't acting as a direct adviser and carrying out major duties for the Executive i.e. the President then I'm sure you agree with Congress that the funding for him to do just that should be immediately cut off. Mr. Cheney wants it both ways depending on how he benefits. This is wrong.

Illegal wiretapping? I must have missed the judicial ruling that the warrantless wiretapping in fact violated US law (as opposed to using a loophole to get around the intent of US law while remaining technically legal). Holding military captives for the duration of an armed conflict, on the other hand, is entirely and unquestionably legal.

Well we'll have to wait for the outcome of the litigation on the warrant less wiretapping of under our justice system of "presumably" innocent Americans (just sounds wrong when you see it written out doesn't it?)

On the military captives... that would be the newly create Bush category "enemy combatants" and the courts have ruled now that they can't be held without trial for the duration of an armed conflict... as you've put it. Why is it that doing everything from secret prison camps to torture to holding indefinitely without formal charges or trial has now become so fashionable with Republicans?

As someone who's a highly respected former General, former Secretary of State & a even a Republican to boot Colin Powell has said as recently as a couple nights ago on Larry King... There's a Geneva Convention and the rule of law... just follow them.

Unless Congress has actual evidence of wrongdoing (as opposed to guesses that maybe something's going on, and if we dig deep enough, who knows, we might just find something that was illegal, but we'll sure as heck find enough to embarass the Administration, which is really the goal of this whole thing) I doubt the subpoenas will hold up. Executive privilege goes back to Washington, and I doubt that clearly internal Executive deliberations involving officials not confirmed by the Senate will be subjected to subpoena for anything less than probable cause.

Well you may have me here. Hard evidence in any case often requires some subpoena power. This is nothing new and just cooked up for Mr. Cheney. This has been going on since the dawn of legal proceedings. If this party believes the desire of Mr. Cheney for 100% cloaked invulnerability is the path to trusting them I believe the American people will open their eyes again come the next election. When you have nothing to hide the common person can easily see you would probably be more forthcoming.

As far as embarrassing this Administration I'd make two points. First... the need no help at on on this, they are doing a swell job all by themselves. And secondly you can't really embarrass someone that has done nothing wrong.

Hey, I say Block on and stay the course! The continuing culture of corruption and the "forever war" in Iraq... sounds like a good 08 bumper sticker to me.

Registered Member

What V.P. Cheney and P. Bush is doing is concealing information from the American people. This isn't the first act that they have been involvement. I've heard in some circles that the Bush Administration is one of the most secretive Presidencies ever in history.

In this particular case, there's no possible law that could have been broken. US Attorneys serve at the President's pleasure, and, while it would be amazingly unethical to dismiss one for political purposes, there is no law which prevents it.

They have to be held accountable for what they've done not only in the Iraq War, but also to the American people in terms of wiretapping and datamining. They've skirted (if not gone over the edge) the Fourth Amendment in the name of the "War on Terror".

Skirting the edge of the Fourth Amendment isn't breaking the law, and that's really all that matters now. Now, if there's reason to believe that the Administration may have actually broken the law, then Congress has every reason to investigate. But for the Judiciary Committee to be investigating the US Attorney firings instead of the wiretapping allegations says to me that they're more interested in scoring political points than actually fulfilling their oversight duties.

Tradition (precedent) counts in a situation like this. If we are to believe there is no major Executive authority and the Vice President isn't acting as a direct adviser and carrying out major duties for the Executive i.e. the President then I'm sure you agree with Congress that the funding for him to do just that should be immediately cut off. Mr. Cheney wants it both ways depending on how he benefits. This is wrong.

If Cheney is acting as an advisor to the President, then any duties he carried out would fall under Congressional oversight, but any discussions would likely fall under the protection of Executive Privilege.

However, if he wasn't acting as a member of the Executive, then he must have been acting as a member of the Legislature, and thus IMO cannot claim any protection from a Congressional investigation.

Well we'll have to wait for the outcome of the litigation on the warrant less wiretapping of under our justice system of "presumably" innocent Americans (just sounds wrong when you see it written out doesn't it?)

It's not a question of guilt or innocence, it's a question of when individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and therefore what constitutes a reasonable search. The Courts have long held that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy at a national border. Therefore, any person entering or leaving the US is subject to search by customs agents. Similarly, any objects entering or leaving the US are subject to search, including letters and packages. The Administration's argument would therefore be that a phone call or e-mail is simply a different method of conveyance than a letter, and therefore also is subject to search when it crosses a US border.

On the military captives... that would be the newly create Bush category "enemy combatants" and the courts have ruled now that they can't be held without trial for the duration of an armed conflict... as you've put it.

Are you referring to the 4th Circuit's recent ruling, or something else? Because the Supreme Court has only today decided to review whether detainees at Gitmo can challenge their detention in US Courts.

As someone who's a highly respected former General, former Secretary of State & a even a Republican to boot Colin Powell has said as recently as a couple nights ago on Larry King... There's a Geneva Convention and the rule of law... just follow them.

As far as embarrassing this Administration I'd make two points. First... the need no help at on on this, they are doing a swell job all by themselves. And secondly you can't really embarrass someone that has done nothing wrong.

No, they really don't, but to keep their embarrassments in the public eye as much as possible sure will help in 2 years when the Democratic nominee is doing as much as possible to tie the Republican nominee to Bush.